Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
LOLOLOLtribes constanPolygamy is detrimental to society because that leaves a lot of males without mates. Such societies have proven to be extremely violent. Males without wives or children have little stake in their societies.Prove it.Of course it is. If it wasn't for sex and reproduction, marriage wouldn't exist. The fact is so obvious that you have to be suffering brain damage to deny it. If people didn't reproduce, then what would be the point of marriage?
Actually, if marriage was about nothing but reproduction, then polygamy would be a much better system for pumping out babies. Maybe bripat9643 is a Mormon and has a whole bunch of wives
Monogamy is terribly inefficient at pumping out babies. There is a years down time while the male is being wasted with each baby.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
You have a vivid imagination. I did nothing of the sort.Nope, you conceded when you lied about my position and failed miserably to prove your own.Just as stupid and wrong.Sadly, you're lying again. I never said, "marriage has nothing to do with reproduction."You're posting queer propaganda, which is pure nonsense. It's hilarious that a guy who claims marriage has nothing to do with reproduction would accuse me of posting nonsense. There has never been a more nonsensical claim posted to this forum than that. Of course, when you defend gay marriage, you are defending an oxymoron, so it's inevitable that you will post nonsense.LOLOL
You’re not posting logic. You’re posting homophobic nonsense.
I said reproduction is not the reason marriage exists.
You lose.
Hmmm, no, you may be discussing it, but I'm not. You don't want to discuss the real issue, so you divert by constantly bleating about what the law says. No one is disputing that the Supreme Court ruled that queers have a right to get married.We aren't discussing what the government decided.
Well, yeah we are. We are discussing government sanctioned marriage. Do try and keep up.
Well, do tell...what is the real issue?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
ROFL! sorry, but what about 3 person partnerships? What is this immutable principle says it is limited to two person partnerships? And what if they are brother and sister? That's where the argument for queer marriage always flounders. You can't justify queer marriages without also justifying polygamous and incestuous marriages.Hmmm, no, you may be discussing it, but I'm not. You don't want to discuss the real issue, so you divert by constantly bleating about what the law says. No one is disputing that the Supreme Court ruled that queers have a right to get married.We aren't discussing what the government decided.
Well, yeah we are. We are discussing government sanctioned marriage. Do try and keep up.
Well, do tell...what is the real issue?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are you asking me not to point out the flaws in your idiotic argument?At this point in time, NO threesomes or kissing cousins get advantages beyond any two within who can document marriage, so there is no problem.
Don't try to make problems where none exist, 'k?
So when is the government going to mandate driver's licenses for the blind?Which part?
The part where the government offering advantages to only heterosexual partnerships being blatant discrimination, or the part where blatant discrimination by the government is unconstitutional?
And by doing so - they are driving more and more people to conservatism. This article is a must read. Absolutely epic. Illustrates just how deeply racist and divisive the has become...Thanks for demonstrating how the left constantly works to keep the flames or racial division burning.
I couldn’t care any less what gay people do. I don’t even care if they get “married” (if they can find a church to perform the ceremony - more power to them). My problem is when you fascists (who insist all of society Nazi goose-step in the exact same direction, looking the same, and thinking the same) violate the U.S. Constitution.The compelling reason for such discrimination is that gay people make people like bripat9643 and p@triot uncomfortable. Everyone has to think like them and look like them and act like them.
Those economic advantages were granted for the benefit of mothers and children. If Adam and Steve get "married, neither one is ever going to be a mother, so there is no reason for them to receive the benefit.Hmmm, no, you may be discussing it, but I'm not. You don't want to discuss the real issue, so you divert by constantly bleating about what the law says. No one is disputing that the Supreme Court ruled that queers have a right to get married.We aren't discussing what the government decided.
Well, yeah we are. We are discussing government sanctioned marriage. Do try and keep up.
Well, do tell...what is the real issue?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
Shhh...do not talk science and reason with progressives. It causes them to have aneurysms. All they know is: “if it feels good, do it” (even if that means rubbing up against members of the same sex). I would say they are like animals - but even animals know better than to try to mate with the same gender.Homosexuality is a threat to the continuation of the species.
Your idiocy is not a flaw in someone else's argument. It's already been explained to you repeatedly that polygamy and incest are being treated fairly under the law since everyone is treated equally.What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are you asking me not to point out the flaws in your idiotic argument?At this point in time, NO threesomes or kissing cousins get advantages beyond any two within who can document marriage, so there is no problem.
Don't try to make problems where none exist, 'k?
LOLSo when is the government going to mandate driver's licenses for the blind?Which part?
The part where the government offering advantages to only heterosexual partnerships being blatant discrimination, or the part where blatant discrimination by the government is unconstitutional?
Same is true for all married couples who have no kids. That's why ALL married couples get the same tax advantages based on tax brackets and regardless if they have kids or not. Those who do have kids, may qualify for certain tax advantages for their kids; which are the same for everyone based on tax brackets, not marriage status.Those economic advantages were granted for the benefit of mothers and children. If Adam and Steve get "married, neither one is ever going to be a mother, so there is no reason for them to receive the benefit.Hmmm, no, you may be discussing it, but I'm not. You don't want to discuss the real issue, so you divert by constantly bleating about what the law says. No one is disputing that the Supreme Court ruled that queers have a right to get married.We aren't discussing what the government decided.
Well, yeah we are. We are discussing government sanctioned marriage. Do try and keep up.
Well, do tell...what is the real issue?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
Those economic advantages were granted for the benefit of mothers and children. If Adam and Steve get "married, neither one is ever going to be a mother, so there is no reason for them to receive the benefit.Hmmm, no, you may be discussing it, but I'm not. You don't want to discuss the real issue, so you divert by constantly bleating about what the law says. No one is disputing that the Supreme Court ruled that queers have a right to get married.We aren't discussing what the government decided.
Well, yeah we are. We are discussing government sanctioned marriage. Do try and keep up.
Well, do tell...what is the real issue?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
You explained that 2 + 2 = 5. What you just said is that they are being treated equally because they were being treated equally. Any dumbass can see they aren't being treated equally. One is against the law, and the other isn't, so how are they being treated equally? Let's see you wave your magic wand and turn black into white.Your idiocy is not a flaw in someone else's argument. It's already been explained to you repeatedly that polygamy and incest are being treated fairly under the law since everyone is treated equally.What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are you asking me not to point out the flaws in your idiotic argument?At this point in time, NO threesomes or kissing cousins get advantages beyond any two within who can document marriage, so there is no problem.
Don't try to make problems where none exist, 'k?
It's no ones's fault but your own that you such a fucking moron, you simply can't grasp that; so you keep bringing it up time and time again.
Those economic advantages were granted for the benefit of mothers and children. If Adam and Steve get "married, neither one is ever going to be a mother, so there is no reason for them to receive the benefit.Hmmm, no, you may be discussing it, but I'm not. You don't want to discuss the real issue, so you divert by constantly bleating about what the law says. No one is disputing that the Supreme Court ruled that queers have a right to get married.Well, yeah we are. We are discussing government sanctioned marriage. Do try and keep up.
Well, do tell...what is the real issue?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
Those advantages were first sought out by rich white dudes looking for trophy-wife deductions and they were made family - friendly by democratic women elected to congress between 1960 and 1984.
The time is over due to extend them to all two-person partnerships with proper documentation or remove them.
I am unable to untangle that pile of gobbledygook. There are all kinds of laws that are designed to benefit mothers because they're only career was raising children, like the fact that they collect their deceased husband's Social Security benefits. Why should Adam collect Steve's Social Security benefits if Steve dies? What's the social benefit of that?Same is true for all married couples who have no kids. That's why ALL married couples get the same tax advantages based on tax brackets and regardless if they have kids or not. Those who do have kids, may qualify for certain tax advantages for their kids; which are the same for everyone based on tax brackets, not marriage status.Those economic advantages were granted for the benefit of mothers and children. If Adam and Steve get "married, neither one is ever going to be a mother, so there is no reason for them to receive the benefit.Hmmm, no, you may be discussing it, but I'm not. You don't want to discuss the real issue, so you divert by constantly bleating about what the law says. No one is disputing that the Supreme Court ruled that queers have a right to get married.Well, yeah we are. We are discussing government sanctioned marriage. Do try and keep up.
Well, do tell...what is the real issue?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
The real issue is whether gay marriage is a moral right. It clearly isn't. You certainly don't believe it is because you just said it wasn't. You don't believe in moral rights. You only believe in legal rights.
A moral right?!?
Morality is something each of us has the right to decide on in the privacy of our own hearts, minds and bedrooms, ass-u-me-ing adherence to current Civil Laws.
The issue is the economic advantages granted to partnerships with marriage documentation that are built in to The Bureaucracy via the tax codes, military policy and rules, and the Social Security & Medicare Acts.
Either We, The Peeps extend those advantages to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is blatant government discrimination and therefore unconstitutional.
`
